Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Starbucks and Scalia Add More Buzz to Torture Debate

Against all odds, Starbucks, Guantanamo Bay and the torture debate have joined forces today to make news.

Anonymous law enforcement and military officials revealed that F.B.I. interrogators provided Al Qaeda suspects with “food whenever they were hungry as well as Starbucks coffee at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,” The Washington Post wrote in a front-page article.

First: There’s a Starbucks at Guantanamo? Like all military bases, this one has all sorts of comforts from home, as a lawyer who visited last year wrote in In These Times magazine:

There is (of course) a Starbucks, a McDonalds, a combined Subway-Pizza Hut, a Wal-Mart-like big box store called the Nex and a gift shop . . . yes, Guantanamo has a gift shop that sells Guantanamo key chains, shot glasses, t-shirts and shell tchotckes. Fillipino and Haitian workers staff all the establishments. And in the distance, beyond these icons of American consumption, is the “gulag.”

The second question was the more newsworthy one: If F.B.I. agents were able to get the detainees to talk without harsh interrogation methods, did the C.I.A. have to use them?

The debate has been laid bare in recent months, with a strong opinion for every side. The Post stayed out of it, saying that the answer was “unknowable.”

But several bloggers hailed another piece of evidence that the C.I.A. went too far. Here’s one example, from Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent:

So we tortured these people, forever sullying the reputation of the U.S. during a time when we’re allegedly fighting a war for Muslim hearts and minds, when we could have offered them a cup of coffee for the same—and probably better—effect.

Herewith, the fine line between self-congratulation and subtle criticism:

Senator Feinstein: And clearly it worked very well.

Director Robert S. Mueller III of the F.B.I.: We believe so.

Senator Feinstein: Does the FBI use the same techniques that the CIA has authorized?

Director Mueller: It has been our policy not to use coercive techniques.

Standing firm on the other side are senior Bush administration officials and John Kiriakou, a former C.I.A. operative who supervised one instance of waterboarding in 2002. The technique wasn’t used until all other options were exhausted, he said, and it “probably saved lives.”

As if the debate wasn’t boiling fast enough, Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court added to the debate today, emphasizing that torture may be constitutional in a ticking time bomb scenario.

“It would be absurd to say you couldn’t do that,” he added, “and once you acknowledge that, we’re into a different game.”

What does this mean? How do you know you are in a ticking time bomb scenario? Do you need to already have evidence that a bomb has been planted? Or is it sufficient if there is simply a possibility that other terrorist acts are going to happen? In the latter case, essentially it would mean that anyone suspected of being associated with a terrorist organization in any way (and thus potentially having information about planned terrorist acts) would be subject to legal torture.

I disagree in the strongest possible terms with Scalia. It is possible that in a ticking time bomb situation that torture might be morally justifiable, but that would not make it legal. In such a case where it was clearly necessary (and so far, in my opinion, no such case has been presented), the president is able to issue pardons. That should happen only if the president feels that the need was so obvious and clear that he is willing to come before the American people and tell them why he is doing it. And if Congress feels he was wrong, they can always impeach him. These pardons should be reserved for truly exceptional circumstances, because the methods for dealing with the legality of torture must also be truly exceptional.

To create a legal loophole which is generally applicable, however, is an entirely different story. Weren’t the victims of torture at Abu Ghraib believed to be associated with terrorist organizations? Which were actively planting bombs? By Scalia’s standard, would these acts have been legal?

A Sumpreme Court justice invoking a scenario from 24 to justify torture! Now we know Scalia must have watched re-runs during the writer’s strike instead of reading. That said, re-runs might be another way to get the gitmo bunch to talk; tie them to a chair, force their eyes open, and make them watch Howie Mandel repeatedly offer up the goods. Now which briefcase holds the latte, which the Big Mac, and which one holds the bomb? Deal? or no Deal?

Mr. Scalia once again shows his injudicious, pompous attitude, in his dismissal of the ethical compromise of ‘so-called’ torture. His statement, from the BBC link: “I suppose it’s the same thing about so-called torture. Is it really so easy to determine that smacking someone in the face to determine where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles is prohibited in the constitution?” he asked. “It would be absurd to say you couldn’t do that. And once you acknowledge that, we’re into a different game. How close does the threat have to be? And how severe can the infliction of pain be?”
It may be that this quotation is out of context, but is fully consistent with his previous statements and behaviors. That he has such great power to shape our nation’s law is humiliating.

It’s not all that generous, but bears insidious intent. Look at it this way: supply them with a cup or two of Starbucks every day for a week. And then, if they don’t cooperate, cut their supply. Threaten them with horrid caffeine headaches. : )

…torture OK, if really necessary, regardless of the Constitution or any other impractical legalities (per our, Catholic, “Godfather” Scalia; who, like the other Godfathers, has no real regard for law). ‘Make him an offer he cannot refuse’. What would you expect?

Unfortunately, Scalia has become the law in our U.S.; and EXPEDIENCY is also the, value-free,value of most in our high Government service … ala Henry Kissinger. This should tell all of us that we need not care about the law either, if it gets in our way.

What may humble and humanize ‘wise guys’ like Scalia and such others in our government, is when some horrible disease or other disaster comes to them, or to someone they DO care about. LET’S HOPE THIS HAPPENS TO THEM, SOON, so that we may sneer at their pain!

If, instead of coffee or water boarding, the detainees would have been forced to eat matzos and drink fine kosher wines made in Israel, they would have soon spilled their guts out while begging for more. In the words of Marie Antoinette, “Let them eat Matzos” and in the words of my dear, departed granny, “It might not help, but it couldn’t hurt..”

What’s truly amazing (aside from the fact that most responders are right about the torturous taste of over-roasted starbucks), is that people seem so overwrought about what happens to these scum who killed so many of my countrymen and women. They will cut your head off with a pen knife and then extol their blessed hand. (Ask Dan Pearlman). Do whatever it takes, including being naughty or nice to get what you need out of them to stop more of their nonsense and stop whining.

What's Next

About

The Lede is a blog that remixes national and international news stories -- adding information gleaned from the Web or gathered through original reporting -- to supplement articles in The New York Times and draw readers in to the global conversation about the news taking place online.

Readers are encouraged to take part in the blogging by using the comments threads to suggest links to relevant material elsewhere on the Web or by submitting eyewitness accounts, photographs or video of news events. Read more.

Six young Iranians were arrested and forced to repent on state television Tuesday for the grievous offense of proclaiming themselves to be “Happy in Tehran,” in a homemade music video they posted on YouTube.Read more…